Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38001640›Full record

ReviewCancers2023

A Systematic Review and Critical Assessment of Breast Cancer Risk Prediction Tools Incorporating a Polygenic Risk Score for the General Population.

Cynthia Mbuya-Bienge, Nora Pashayan, Cornelia D Kazemali, Julie Lapointe, Jacques Simard, Hermann Nabi

Registry-linked trialAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Cancers, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT06922708 (Implementing Polygenic Risk Scores for Breast Cancer Prevention), which is not on this map. Cited by 14 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

NCT06922708 narecruitingnot on this mapstarted 2025, after this paper: background citation

Implementing Polygenic Risk Scores for Breast Cancer Prevention: Protocol for a Feasibility Study in a Real-world Clinical Setting

TypeinterventionalSponsorCatholic University of the Sacred HeartRan2025 to 2026Enrolled100ConditionsBreast CancerArmsClinical pathway for breast cancer prevention based on PRS-integrated CanRisk assessment
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

14 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Observational
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Cynthia Mbuya-BiengeDepartment of Social and Preventive Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Université Laval, Quebec City, QC G1V 0A6, Canada.
Nora PashayanDepartment of Applied Health Research, University College London, London WC1E 6BT, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-0843-2468
Cornelia D KazemaliDepartment of Social and Preventive Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Université Laval, Quebec City, QC G1V 0A6, Canada.
Julie LapointeOncology Division, CHU de Québec-Université Laval Research Center, Quebec City, QC G1S 4L8, Canada.
Jacques SimardEndocrinology and Nephology Division, CHU de Québec-Université Laval Research Center, Quebec City, QC G1V 4G2, Canada.ORCID 0000-0001-6906-3390
Hermann NabiDepartment of Social and Preventive Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Université Laval, Quebec City, QC G1V 0A6, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-7832-0413

Funding

CIHR 155865
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) in the form of a polygenic risk score (PRS) have emerged as a promising factor that could improve the predictive performance of breast cancer (BC) risk prediction tools. This study aims to appraise and critically assess the current evidence on these tools. Studies were identified using Medline, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library up to November 2022 and were included if they described the development and/ or validation of a BC risk prediction model using a PRS for women of the general population and if they reported a measure of predictive performance. We identified 37 articles, of which 29 combined genetic and non-genetic risk factors using seven different risk prediction tools. Most models (55.0%) were developed on populations from European ancestry and performed better than those developed on populations from other ancestry groups. Regardless of the number of SNPs in each PRS, models combining a PRS with genetic and non-genetic risk factors generally had better discriminatory accuracy (AUC from 0.52 to 0.77) than those using a PRS alone (AUC from 0.48 to 0.68). The overall risk of bias was considered low in most studies. BC risk prediction tools combining a PRS with genetic and non-genetic risk factors provided better discriminative accuracy than either used alone. Further studies are needed to cross-compare their clinical utility and readiness for implementation in public health practices.

Indexed as

breast cancernon-genetic risk factorspolygenic risk score (PRS)risk prediction toolssystematic review

Identifiers

PMID38001640
PMCPMC10670420

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.